United States issues updated travel warning for South Africa
While the country remains at Level 2 – 'Exercise Increased Caution''' – the enhanced advisory reflects growing diplomatic tensions between the two nations.
The updated guidance, issued by the US Department of State on May 27, now includes a warning about the risk of terrorist violence in South Africa, although it does not identify any specific threats or groups.
In addition, travelers are being urged to remain vigilant in urban centers after dark and avoid traveling outside major metropolitan areas at night due to heightened crime risks and road safety concerns.
US officials working in South Africa now face stricter movement restrictions.
They must secure special authorisation to enter certain township areas near Cape Town and are required to use armored vehicles during limited visiting hours.
The travel update comes just days after a contentious Oval Office meeting between President Donald Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa on May 21.
Trump cited alleged attacks on white farmers and accused South Africa of enabling a so-called 'white genocide' – claims that have been widely debunked.
President Ramaphosa pushed back, stating that while South Africa faces serious criminal challenges, violence is not racially exclusive.
'There is criminality in our country,' Ramaphosa said.
'People who do get killed, unfortunately through criminal activity, are not only white people. The majority of them are black people.'
The South African leader also reaffirmed that land reform efforts are aimed at addressing historical injustices, not racially motivated land seizures.
This advisory is the latest in a series of developments straining US-South Africa relations.
In recent months: The US cancelled development aid to South Africa
to South Africa Offered asylum protections to white Afrikaner groups
Expelled South Africa's ambassador following public criticism of President Trump.
The upgraded travel guidance now appears to reflect a hardening US posture towards South Africa amid the political fallout.
Despite the advisory level remaining at Level 2, the US government's updated stance suggests travelers should exercise greater vigilance, particularly in high-crime areas and during night-time travel.
Government employees face restricted access to certain regions, underscoring US concerns over security and political stability.
The long-term impact of the diplomatic spat remains to be seen.
Analysts warn that if tensions escalate further, it could affect bilateral cooperation on trade, security, and regional development.
For now, South Africa remains open to American travelers, but the message from Washington is clear: caution is advised.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
a minute ago
- IOL News
Cyril fights to delay apartheid damages case
President Cyril Ramaphosa requests the Gauteng High Court to postpone a R167 million damages case related to apartheid atrocities until a judicial inquiry clarifies the facts surrounding the investigation and prosecution of these crimes. Image: Sandi Kwon Hoo / DFA LAWYERS representing the families of victims and survivors of apartheid-era atrocities believe President Cyril Ramaphosa does not want to delay the R167 million constitutional damages case against the government because it's politically awkward for him. 'Therefore he wants the inquiry first,' said Advocate Matthew Chaskalson. Ramaphosa urged the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria to stay the case until the conclusion of the judicial commission of inquiry, so that all the facts are on the table. Judge Nicolene Janse van Nieuwenhuizen listening to the arguments of Advocate Matthew Chaskalson SC on Wednesday during President Cyril Ramaphosa's application for a stay of the constitutional damages case brought by the families of apartheid era victims. Image: Zelda Venter Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ramaphosa had earlier signed a proclamation for the establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry to determine whether attempts were made to prevent the investigation and prosecution of apartheid-era crimes. Advocate Tim Bruinders SC, arguing on behalf of Ramaphosa and the government, said it is vital that all the facts first be established before the constitutional damages case is served before court. He said the commission will shed more light on why, and to what extent and by whom, efforts or attempts were made to influence or pressure the South African Police Service or the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to stop investigating or prosecuting TRC cases. According to Bruinders, it is at this stage impossible for Ramaphosa and the government to issue an affidavit in the constitutional damages case if the facts are not clear. 'In fact, we do not know at this stage what the true facts are,' he said. Judge Nicolene Janse van Nieuwenhuizen questioned whether it is not the prerogative of the applicants (the survivors and families) to proceed with their constitutional damages case as they deem fit. Bruinders responded that the facts must first become clear - something which a commission can establish by calling witnesses - before a court could decide on damages. 'These are families who have the sympathy of the government. They don't have closure. This is a concern for any government, but the facts must still be explored,' he said. Bruinders added that the government wanted the truth as to why these cases were not investigated and prosecuted. But it first needed the facts. Judge Janse van Nieuwenhuizen also questioned whether it was not possible for the court hearing the constitutional damages claim to deal with the cases of each of the 25 families and to establish the facts then. But Bruinders said as witnesses usually do not testify in motion court proceedings, such as this, the commission of inquiry is in a better position to establish the facts, as it has the tools to investigate the issues. Chaskalson implored the judge not to stay the constitutional damages case, saying the families have been waiting for between 30 and 50 years for justice. "They are getting older, many have meanwhile died, and those who are still surviving want to see justice done and get closure while they are still here. They are entitled to their day in court after decades of waiting.' Chaskalson added that the commission of inquiry can go on for months before it makes any recommendations. He pointed out that the commission can only make recommendations, which are not binding on the president. Chaskalson said the issue will in any event have to serve before court, as the president cannot simply dip into public funds and pay compensation to the victims and families. This is a matter for the court to determine and for it to then issue an order. He accused the president of not wanting to choose where he stands in this matter. "He does not want to go ahead in court because it's politically awkward for him,' Chaskalson said. In asking that the case not be delayed, Chaskalson said the applicants and their legal teams are confident that they have a good case in the constitutional damages matter. Judgment was reserved. Cape Times
Eyewitness News
19 minutes ago
- Eyewitness News
Mbalula: ANC won't abandon BEE, Expropriation Act even if party leaders sanctioned by US govt
JOHANNESBURG - The African National Congress (ANC) said it won't abandon transformative policies like BEE and the Expropriation Act even if it means its leaders get sanctioned by the US government. As of 7 August, all South African goods exported to the US will be slapped with a 30% tariff. While the sweeping tariffs are set to apply to a number of countries across the world, at a media briefing on Wednesday, the ANC said it believed that South Africa was being punished for some of its legislation. Earlier this year, US President Donald Trump falsely claimed that the South African government was using the Expropriation Act to seize land from white farmers. In April, controversial Republican politician, Ronny Jackson, introduced a bill to congress that seeks to review the USA's relations with South Africa and sanction "corrupt" ANC officials. ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula said that the Trump administration seemed intent on not engaging honestly. "So it's to basically coerce us to do things that are anti-transformation. If it means we are going to suffer through sanctions, as leaders of the ANC, let it be. We will never back imperialists. We will never foresake our country for which we fought for its liberation." Mbalula acknowledged that the US tariffs would have a huge negative impact on the country's economy.
The Citizen
31 minutes ago
- The Citizen
Pretoria at a crossroads with the US
US tariffs and summit snubs mark a turning point for Pretoria, testing its sovereignty and foreign policy independence. Relations between Pretoria and Washington have once again plunged into a new historic low following a series of moves by US President Donald Trump. In a single sweep, Washington has imposed punitive 30% tariffs on South African steel, citrus and automotive exports. These duties take effect from tomorrow after the US failed to respond to South Africa's trade proposals. The tariff blow has escalated diplomatic tension, with the US expressing disdain for South Africa's broad-based black economic empowerment and land reform policies. In addition, Trump announced a boycott of the G20 Summit in Johannesburg in November and there has been an intensified criticism of Pretoria's legal action against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing the country of 'supporting genocide denial'. At the heart of this diplomatic crisis, it must be admitted that US reaction is motivated by South Africa's growing leadership within the Brics bloc – now expanded to include Iran, Ethiopia and Egypt – and its outspoken support for Palestine, including its ICJ case accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza. ALSO READ: US tariff an existential threat for a third of metals and engineering sector These positions have drawn fierce condemnation from the Trump administration and triggered a dramatic shift in US policy toward Pretoria. As much as the Trump administration seeks to shield American industries, these protectionist tariffs smell of political motivation and economic recklessness. They could cost thousands of South African jobs, disrupt key industrial supply chains and severely undermine efforts toward African industrialisation. With such consequences, it leaves one to believe that South Africa is being punished for its exercise of sovereign foreign policy. South Africa's foreign policy shift has been years in the making. There have been talks for de-dollarisation, reform of global institutions and solidarity among developing nations in an attempt to challenge this entrenched Western-led domination of the world. ALSO READ: As if US tariff is not enough, more bad news for South African exporters Therefore, it ought not to be surprising that its firm stance on Palestine, including the closure of its embassy in Israel and calls for sanctions, has drawn civil society praise and Western disapproval. Both Brics activism and pro-Palestinian diplomacy have made South Africa a target for ideological pressure from Washington. And not only is this diplomatic row having grave consequences on paper, but the 30% tariffs which affect over R50 billion in annual exports, also threatens Pretoria's continued participation in the African Growth and Opportunity Act – a US trade preference programme that has historically boosted African economies. This moment signifies more than a breakdown in bilateral relations. It exposes the balance of forces in global governance where rising powers challenge the hegemonic influence of the West. With Trump absent from the G20, the summit now ought to become a platform for global south leaders to resist US bullying and advocate for alternative visions of a new world order. ALSO READ: Beyond Trump's pointless pause As for Washington, the path of coercion is now proving unsustainable. Because by alienating democratic partners like South Africa, it undermines its long-term influence in Africa, especially taking the rise of Chinese and Russian engagements into consideration. However, Pretoria must not give up on engaging the US because, economically, a lot is at stake. But if South Africa is expected to forfeit its sovereignty, then this is the moment the country needs to look for other avenues that can ensure its survival without the US. This diplomatic standoff is not simply about trade disputes or summit politics. It raises deeper questions about sovereignty, justice and the rules-based system that will define international relations in the 21st century. A return to dialogue, mutual respect and principled engagement is not just desirable, it is imperative.
